A little more than a year ago, the Rev. Dr. Ann Holmes Redding [page 9] found herselfat the doorway of a new world, Islam, and wasn’t quite sure how she got there.As she reflected on her journey, she realized Jesus was her guide. Now both apracticing Muslim and an Episcopal priest, Redding shares her thoughts on how thetwo faiths inform each other.

“The way I understand Jesus is compatible with Islam,” Redding explains, “andalthough there are Christians and Muslims who think I must convert from one tothe other, the more I go down this path the more excited I am about both Christianityand Islam.”

Redding credits her upbringing for early exposure to interfaith relationships. She wasbaptized by an African Methodist Episcopal minister but the only Sunday school sheattended was Episcopal. She attended a Unitarian youth group in high school whenthe Episcopal group disbanded. She was influenced by a cooperative community nearwhere she grew up that was comprised of mostly Quakers, Unitarians and Jews. Herfather was a prominent civil rights lawyer whose work brought him and the family into contact with people of many faith backgrounds.

After an introduction to a Muslim prayer practice in early 2006, Redding knewshe had been wrestling with a call to Islam. She approached a Muslim woman andtold her so, and the woman replied, “Christianity has been good to you and you toit, and you don’t have to choose.” That made all the difference in Redding’s choice topractice Islam.

“What Islam has done for me is shed this light on Christianity and shown for meanew what a glorious way Christianity is,” she explains. “We Christians, in struggling to express the beauty and dignity of Jesus and the pattern of life he offers, describe him as the ‘only begotten son of God.’ That’s how wonderful he is to us. But that is not literal,” she continues. “When we say Jesus is the only begotten one, we are saying he’s unique in some way. Islam says the same thing. He’s the only human aside from Adam who is directly created by God, andhe’s different from Adam because he has a human mother. So there’s agreement—thisperson is unique in his relationship to God.” Christianity also says that we are all partof the household of God and in essence brothers and sisters of Jesus. Muslims takethe figurative language of “only begotten,” make it concrete and contradict it: God “neither begets nor is begotten.”

“I agree with both because I do want to say that Jesus is unique, and for me, Jesusis my spiritual master,” Redding says. “Muslims say Mohammed is the most perfect.Well, it depends on who you fall in love with. I fell in love with Jesus a long time agoand I’m still in love with Jesus but I’d like to think my relationship with Jesus hasmatured.”

She added that what Islam does is take Jesus out of the way of her relationshipwith God, “but it doesn’t drop Jesus. I was following Jesus and he led me into Islam,and he didn’t drop me off at the door. He’s there, too.”

At first I wondered if this is a case like the Revd David Hart who literally apostasised — formally converted — to Hinduism but somehow (probably by not telling them the whole truth) got his licence in the Diocese of Ely renewed, or if Dr Redding is simply doing what some liberals do, playing at another religion without actually joining.

Then I read the newsletter from the Diocese of Olympia. Yep, she's an apostate. Literally. And obviously she's not hiding it from the bishop - she's in the newsletter bragging about it!

In a way this is not news: since 1966 when James Pike was acquitted of heresy even though he repudiated the Trinity one can deny the teachings of the creeds and be a sitting bishop of the Episcopal Church even though on paper it is still a Christian church. A logical conclusion has been reached, and I wouldn't be surprised if Fr Richard John Neuhaus's point is played out, that when orthodoxy becomes optional it's only a matter of time before it’s banned. (Actually one can argue that this is happening right now.)

Dr R does sound ignorant of Christian theology but one wonders if at some point she had it all explained away leaving the mush she thinks is the Christian position.

Abuses have gone on in churches throughout history. I wonder if Olympia's new bishop will clean up this mess. I wouldn't hold my breath.

I understand the Episcopal ordinary of the Diocese of Utah, Kathryn Tanner Irish, born a Mormon, never really was baptised a Christian. (Mormons aren't Christians so their baptisms don't count according to classic Anglicanism.)

Well, perhaps she could mature even more in her faith by going and living under sharia law...I'd give her about three months before she got her head lopped off.

I think greek makes an excellent point. Nacho also makes an excellent point. This is like another circus sideshow under the big tent of the episcopal church.

Logged

Troparion - Tone 1:O Sebastian, spurning the assemblies of the wicked,You gathered the wise martyrs Who with you cast down the enemy; And standing worthily before the throne of God, You gladden those who cry to you:Glory to him who has strengthened you! Glory to him who has granted you a crown!

“We Christians, in struggling to express the beauty and dignity of Jesus and the pattern of life he offers, describe him as the ‘only begotten son of God.’ That’s how wonderful he is to us. But that is not literal,” she continues. “When we say Jesus is the only begotten one, we are saying he’s unique in some way. Islam says the same thing. He’s the only human aside from Adam who is directly created by God, andhe’s different from Adam because he has a human mother.

Good one Reverend! What a great way to cover up the fact that one is a scholarly failure ... Rather than do any serious theology and look at what the Church actually said about Arianism, let's go for our 15 minutes of fame by saying the stupidest and most offensive thing we possibly can as a representative of our Church.

Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

Between this and the recent story of the two Episcopalian priests who got "married" (both men of course) it is clear that the Episcopalians aren't particular about who they admit to their "priesthood."

Quote

“The way I understand Jesus is compatible with Islam,” Redding explains, “and although there are Christians and Muslims who think I must convert from one to the other, the more I go down this path the more excited I am about both Christianity and Islam.”

I hope she realizes that many (if not most) of those Muslims who think she must convert from one to the other would consider her offense as one justifiably punishable by death.

Between this and the recent story of the two Episcopalian priests who got "married" (both men of course) it is clear that the Episcopalians aren't particular about who they admit to their "priesthood."

Sigh. Actually, the Diocese and Bishops can be quite particular about who is allowed in the "Process" and then there's no guarantee that it will lead to seminary and ordination. What people do afterwards is still part of the Free Will thing. This woman is not the definition of Anglicanism, she is one individual.

Quote

I hope she realizes that many (if not most) of those Muslims who think she must convert from one to the other would consider her offense as one justifiably punishable by death.

What an idiot.

Possibly not. Likely not. She lives in a situation where things are not controlled or stringent. I suspect that she is not going to move to Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia. This seems somewhat syncretist, but calling her names isn't going to convince her to change her mind.

Sigh.

Ebor

Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

It says he decided to renounce his Druid conversion within 24 hours - bet that's how long it took him to realize how much it was going to cost him to live on a Druid priest's salary.

I was there, following the whole unfortunate incident. William Melnyk at my last knowledge is not an Episcopal Priest. The final renoucing of Orders was from what I know in the winter/spring of 2005.

There was a mess of attempts to cover tracks (hard to do on the 'Net thanks to cached sites) and erasures. The Bishop of Pennsylvania could not ignore it, it made the papers, there were links and removals of links and ummm weak excuses on part of the ECUSA offical site. Mr. Melnyk stopped serving his parish, I would have to dig up the information, but it is in my mind that the Vestry asked him to step down. Some time later he went back to being a druid and has done some things like writing a novel with Druid and Christian themes.

And to counter such incidents and persons, I could give examples of Anglicans/Episcopalians who don't go that way and do things for the love of Our Lord and His Church.

With Respect,

Ebor

Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

If you mean the woman in the article, possibly none of the above. "wolfish deceitfulness"? Whom would she be maliciously trying to deceive? I'm afraid I don't follow.

Ebor

Since this article is proudly published in a segment of the Episcopal church that claims to be "Christian" but is actually anti Christ, I question their validity to claim themselves as "Christian." Whether their all star syncretist is an unwitting dupe I cannot fully determine.

I had to reread this article a couple of times just to make sure it wasn't full of the shock I thought it had when I first read it. Now, I think the article and this woman are just funny. My personal favorite quote:

When we say Jesus is the only begotten one, we are saying he’s unique in some way.

Only-begotten is now synonymous with unique. I can't wait to try that out on one of my students. "Katie, you're an only-begotten student."

I wasn't sure where poor Bill Melnyk ended up though I was fairly sure he was no longer an active Episcopal priest and suspected he'd reverted to paganism. Yes, that was apostasy. Seems more real, though, rightly or wrongly, when somebody converts to a large, recognised, centuries-old religion and not something as modern and made-up as neo-paganism.

Incidentally his wife, Glyn, who likewise was caught writing pagan things online (her posts on a message board and things she co-wrote with him), is still the rector of St Francis, Malvern. I think she recanted like him but unlike him she stuck with that, at least publicly, and of course didn't leave the ministry.

I wondered when I read the news of Dr Redding how well a woman preaching the gospel of gay weddings (I don't know if Dr R does that BTW) would go over in Riyadh or Kabul.

But it's a good point - she seems to have undergone the conversion ceremony to Islam but in many ways is still more an apostate Christian playing at Islam than a sincere convert. Put another way she's both a bad Christian and a bad Muslim.

Fr Hart's case, in which he said he could still celebrate the Eucharist, makes more sense in his new faith, which is by nature syncretistic. His doing so after conversion would be blasphemous according to Christianity but perfectly sensible to a Hindu. (He also put his money where his mouth is and moved to India to become a real Hindu.)

Considering how Christianity and Islam are mutuallly exclusive - I understand there's some nasty stuff against the Trinity in the Koran - again I get the impression this is a thoroughly Western, First World dilettante playing games with religion.

It is impossible to practice both Chistianity and Islam, like serving two masters. It's simple - a Christian who beomes a Muslim is no longer a Christian and is a Muslim, plain and simple. Like the millions and millions of apostates since the rise of Islam. Maybe "Anglicanism" has special rules!

I believe Mr. Melnyk/Oakwyse got in to hot water more over some questionable use of parish finances than the Druidry. As noted, his wife is still pastor of St. Francis in the Fields.

The financial matter was nothing like robbing the poor box or embezzling. From what I recall it was a matter of taking donations to buy some land near/in Glastonbury for a druidic group/site and having the checks sent to his Discretionary Fund, an amount of money that Anglican parishs have for the priest to use for things like emergency charity and the like. Questionable, yes, but not the big reason people were upset from what I read.

I'm sorry, but just because it's some Anglicans doesn't mean that money/finance is what is the most important thing. Faith and belief *do* matter.

Ebor

Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

I wasn't sure where poor Bill Melnyk ended up though I was fairly sure he was no longer an active Episcopal priest and suspected he'd reverted to paganism. Yes, that was apostasy. Seems more real, though, rightly or wrongly, when somebody converts to a large, recognised, centuries-old religion and not something as modern and made-up as neo-paganism.

He's still around, though one thing I've read indicates that he's stopped being the head of a Druid Group as well. There is a reference to him going on a more solitary path. In some ways and views the "Druidism" isn't modern, but harkening back to old pre-Christian/Celtic roots. ymmv.

Quote

I wondered when I read the news of Dr Redding how well a woman preaching the gospel of gay weddings (I don't know if Dr R does that BTW) would go over in Riyadh or Kabul.

I don't have to wonder. I followed "The Religious Policeman" blog when the author was still putting up new material. I have a good idea what the "Muttawa" or "Taliban" would do, but then again in such places women do not have much public liberty to begin with.

Quote

Fr Hart's case, in which he said he could still celebrate the Eucharist, makes more sense in his new faith, which is by nature syncretistic. His doing so after conversion would be blasphemous according to Christianity but perfectly sensible to a Hindu. (He also put his money where his mouth is and moved to India to become a real Hindu.)

As I recall from the story last Fall, Mr. Hart had done this all on his own and when his Bishop found out, let's just say that he was not amused, nor supportive.

Quote

Considering how Christianity and Islam are mutuallly exclusive - I understand there's some nasty stuff against the Trinity in the Koran - again I get the impression this is a thoroughly Western, First World dilettante playing games with religion.

It's possible. I'm not going to try to psychologically analyze a person I've never met. I will say that I wonder if she would wear a hijab or niqab or burhka in this country (I doubt the latter two) or accept being a plural wife or some of the other circumstances that muslim women have imposed in some times and places.

Ebor

Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

Since this article is proudly published in a segment of the Episcopal church that claims to be "Christian" but is actually anti Christ, I question their validity to claim themselves as "Christian." Whether their all star syncretist is an unwitting dupe I cannot fully determine.

That is your reading that there is "pride" in the publishing. It is a diocesan publication. It carries stories about peole in the diocese for a variety of reasons. If that diocese is like any of the ones I know, there are going to be some people who are, shall we say, not in agreement with the lady's beliefs. I do not think that the Bishop is going to be ordering Arabic lessons in all of his parishes.

Do you know any people personally in that diocese that you can with sureness declare them to be "anti Christ"?

Grimly,

Ebor

Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

If you mean the woman in the article, possibly none of the above. "wolfish deceitfulness"? Whom would she be maliciously trying to deceive? I'm afraid I don't follow.

Ebor

Who is she trying to deceive? Try everyone who reads that article and everyone to whom she preaches her "you can be a practicing Muslim and an Episcopal priest" mantra. Clearly this woman is not stupid. Thus I believe we are left with little choice but to believe that she is being willfully dishonest when she says that Christianity (which means you believe in the Divinity of Jesus Christ the only Son of God) and Islam (which expressly denies the Divinity of Jesus Christ and states without doubt that He is not the Son of God) are compatible.

From reading the article, not knowing the lady personally, it seems to me that she is not being "willfully dishonest", she really does believe what she says, however contradictory and illogical it seems to others. Perhaps because I have known others such as some Unitarians who do not believe that Jesus is God, but a very special teacher/example/man I can understand her thoughts at least partially, even though I do not agree with them.

I would have to read it again, but I have my doubts that the lady had a cure/parish/mission of her own.

Ebor

Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

Ah, thank you OzGeorge. It is as I was suspecting. She has a diocesan office, not a parish.

Somehow knowing that she is the director of faith formation for her diocese rather than a parish priest isn't much of a comfort. She is engaging in heretical behaviour and her church is allowing it to happen. Sorry. I just can't see this as a good thing. And I realize that one cannot judge the entire ECUSA by the actions of one or two people. But between Bishop Spong, the two priests who got "married" and now the priest who also happens to be a practicing Muslim ... I think the ECUSA has some serious problems.

Somehow knowing that she is the director of faith formation for her diocese rather than a parish priest isn't much of a comfort.

Oh, I don't know. People tend to get those phoney boloney types of "positions" because they get kicked up there by their peers, none of whom can work with them. People become "directors" because no one can trust them to even be in charge of a chicken coup.

Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

Oh, I don't know. People tend to get those phoney boloney types of "positions" because they get kicked up there by their peers, none of whom can work with them. People become "directors" because no one can trust them to even be in charge of a chicken coup.

Indeed, that can often be the case.. the "Peter Principle" in action, maybe.

Oh, I don't know. People tend to get those phoney boloney types of "positions" because they get kicked up there by their peers, none of whom can work with them. People become "directors" because no one can trust them to even be in charge of a chicken coup.

Isn't this the Dilbert Principle of Middle Management? A business can't have an incompetent salesman driving customers away, yet they can't fire this person, and this person would destroy the company if promoted to upper-level management. So they make this incompetent bozo (think pointy-haired boss) a mid-level manager. (Thank you, Scott Adams.)

Does anyone remember the Black activist of the 60's/70's - he might have been a black panther and he converted to Christianity during the Jesus Movement of the early 70's but by the mid-70's added some Nation of Islam and was promoting a new religion he coined Chrislam?

I read an interview with him in the old Spiritual Counterfeits Project newsletter (anyone remember them? - they were a real good cult exposing ministry out of Berkley, Cali)

Coming from an organization (I would have to hold my breath to call it an actual christian denomination at this point) that has gone from ordaining women priest to active homosexuals, is any of this buffoonery any surprise anymore? Maybe one of the U2 masses inspired her enough to venture out and try new things. Maybe she was inspired by one of the gay priest who gave an arousing (sorry, couldn't resist ) homily on the virtues of the Islamic faith. Maybe she was reading one of Spong's books and had an epiphany....or maybe, just maybe... haha

« Last Edit: June 08, 2007, 03:41:34 AM by Nacho »

Logged

"If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world."--Mere Christianity

I did a google search - it was Eldridge Cleaver. He fled the US because of federal charges against him, then abruptly returned to the US in 1975, turned himself in, the charges were dropped. Life as an ex-patriot changed him - he became outspokenly anti-communist (from having lived in some communist countries while on the run) and became a born again Christian.

It was after this that he flirted with Chrislam* (he didn't invent this syncretism, some guy in Nigeria did). Later he fell into drugs, had alot of problems in the 80's. In the early 90's got clean and returned to Christianity and died in 1998.

* almost positive it was him that did this - how many radical black panthers had evangelical turn-arounds at the time, that would have received widespread attention in evangelical publications

I think that Chrislam, although entirely heretical and apostaticized from both religions' perspective, is a more well thought out and serious attempt than the mushy fluff this chick is presenting. Both are whacko, but this is just so stupid and trendy as to be laughable if not for the fact that the upper middle class yuppies she likely "ministers" to (who also are pseudo-intellectual, polically liberal and all too PC) probably eat this crap up like flies on horse- .

That is your reading that there is "pride" in the publishing. It is a diocesan publication. It carries stories about peole in the diocese for a variety of reasons. If that diocese is like any of the ones I know, there are going to be some people who are, shall we say, not in agreement with the lady's beliefs. I do not think that the Bishop is going to be ordering Arabic lessons in all of his parishes.

Do you know any people personally in that diocese that you can with sureness declare them to be "anti Christ"? :-\Didn't say that any of the people of the diocese are anti Christ but that the diocese itself is anti Christ to endorse apostacy. Any Christian communion calling itself such should have any minister defrocked for embracing an anti Christian faith; is this not just common sense? I have communicated to an anguished Episcopalian blogger (and I should talk to more) offering the Western rite of the Orthodoxy under the Antiochian archdiocese as an option; he declined and said the same problems will probably come to the Orthodox church too (look at the move to alter the Divine Liturgy on another thread). This woman is under severe delusion but so were Arius and Cerinthus and she needs to be prayed for. Sorry the consequences of what she is doing and its publication is dhimmitude which is unhealthy for Orthodox, Catholic, or Protestant Christians.

Somehow knowing that she is the director of faith formation for her diocese rather than a parish priest isn't much of a comfort. She is engaging in heretical behaviour and her church is allowing it to happen. Sorry. I just can't see this as a good thing.

I never said that it was a good thing. I don't have any contacts with that diocese, so I know little about it and it's working. However, I think it quite likely that this story could lead to the lady in question not holding her post for a long time or for there to be some furor or at least questioning from some of the people in it. I haven't checked the Episcopal/Anglican Blogosphere on it, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's already being looked at.

Quote

And I realize that one cannot judge the entire ECUSA by the actions of one or two people. But between Bishop Spong, the two priests who got "married" and now the priest who also happens to be a practicing Muslim ... I think the ECUSA has some serious problems.

But those stories get the press. Human beings often enjoy other's misfortunes and pointing at them. It's easier then examining one's own self/group/etc maybe.

Other Churches have serious problems as well, as may be read about in the papers, on the 'Net and on the sites of organizations of people in those Churches who are calling for oversight of funds, honestly in dealing with abuses and other matters. One might hope that those who are not members of them could try to avoid pointing them out with much schadenfreude.

I hope that it is not out of line, nor against forum rules to offer another Anglican as a counter example from 1965, not as the only example but the first one that came to my head.

Jonathan Myrick Daniels, Seminarian, who went down to Alabama for the Civil Rights Movement because he belived that God called him to go and serve other human beings as well. Eventually he pushed a young black woman out of the way of a white man's gun and took the shot himself. He died instantly to save another Human Being. He was Faithful to the end.http://justus.anglican.org/resources/bio/228.html

Ebor

Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

I did a google search - it was Eldridge Cleaver. He fled the US because of federal charges against him, then abruptly returned to the US in 1975, turned himself in, the charges were dropped. Life as an ex-patriot changed him - he became outspokenly anti-communist (from having lived in some communist countries while on the run) and became a born again Christian.

Interesting information. I didn't know about that. Thank you for posting it.

Quote

....this chick....

While the woman's views are contradictory, illogical and not in line with creedal Christianity, is it helpful to show disdain by referring an adult woman as a "chick"? I'm sorry, but that is a personal epithet which does not deal with the lady's actual words, actions and ideas.

Quote

but this is just so stupid and trendy as to be laughable if not for the fact that the upper middle class yuppies she likely "ministers" to (who also are pseudo-intellectual, polically liberal and all too PC) probably eat this crap up like flies on horse- .

You do not know the people involved nor what the lady in question actually does? Would someone from that diocese coming here find such scornful words be liable to listen to other opinions? They are still Human Beings made by God in His image; you do not know them yet label them in highly negative ways. Would you call people that to their faces, one wonders.

I'm sorry, I'm tired.

Ebor

Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

Recent Convert- would it be possible for you to fix the quotes on your last post? It has my and yours all together. THank you.

Ebor

Sorry ebor, something became garbled. In my previous post: "I didn't say that individuals of the diocese are anti Christ but that the diocese is (being-unquote) anti Christ to endorse apostacy. Any Christian communion calling itself such should have any minister defrocked for embracing anti Christianity; is this not just common sense? I have communicated to an anguished Episcopalian blogger (different but similar matter- unquote) (and I should talk to more) offering the Western rite of Orthodoxy of the Antiochian diocese as an option; he declined and said the same problems will probably come to the Orthodox church too (look at the move to alter the Divine Liturgy on another thread). This woman is under severe delusion, but so were Arius and Cerinthus, and she needs prayer. Nonethelss. consequences of what is being done and its publication is dhimmitude which is unhealthy for Orthodox, Catholic, and Proterstant Christians.

I guess one more point I would like to add is that I have seen reports of "orthodox" Episcopalian ministers so shabbily treated by a corrupt hierarchy in that communion that my indignation is aroused when I see situations so gleefully published that are anti Christian.

According to a post/article on Titus One Nine about 2 months ago, Dr. Redding was laid off from her postion at the Cathedral along with 2 other people in March. Now I don't know whether that was rescinded or if the article/interview was done prior to the end of March. The Cathedral website might be a bit behind in getting updates.

How an earth can anyone think they might reconcile Christian and Islamic belief, let alone a Christian minister?

The differences on The Trinity, Christ's Divinity, salvation, etc., etc., are irreconcilable.

If one reduces traditional Christian dogma and historical assertions to the level of mere mythology used to communicate vague "spiritual truths", then I guess it's possible. But then the mythology ceases to resemble anything of Christianity, which is based not on mythology, but on documented historical events.

Having been in a conservative episcopal group (The ICCEC, no affiliation with the ECUSA or the Anglican church), I never understood those conservative episcopalians that want to "fight from within". Can't they see that 'the glory has departed" is written above the door of every episcopal church?? They should just become Orthodox, I mean shoot, many of them are always talking about how "close" the episcopal church is to the Orthodox church and how we "have a lot in common". They should just come on home to the Orthodox church and they won't have to worry about any of the liberal/unitarian circus show going on over here (well, mabey a different kind of a circus show, but I think our problems are small compared to theirs).

Logged

Troparion - Tone 1:O Sebastian, spurning the assemblies of the wicked,You gathered the wise martyrs Who with you cast down the enemy; And standing worthily before the throne of God, You gladden those who cry to you:Glory to him who has strengthened you! Glory to him who has granted you a crown!

Ebor, if I offended you in any way I am sorry. The word "chick" was meant to describe the behavior of this supposedly educated cleric. I didn't use the word "airhead" although that's what she came off as, or as a "Valley Girl" from the 80's.

You know, we joke around about contemporary Christian music and its "my boyfriend Jesus" lyrics. But that's what this woman sounded like: my boyfriend Jesus led me to Islam, but don't worry, we're still together.

If I met her face to face I'd probably say, "what the heck are you thinking?"

I mean what else can you say? Beside the fact that her soul is in danger, this is utter stupidity.

As for the comment about the liberal, PC yuppies, I have a couple of stern Michael Moore type liberal kids and they wouldn't buy this! They are closer to the idea that all religions are dangerous than to be stupidly enamoured with such syncretism. I also do not think your average working guy would buy this either. So who is left? The affluent late boomers who are certainly are not conservative in doctrine and whose PC dogma would make them ripe for something like this.

Ebor, I don't know if you can love everyone into the kingdom or into orthodox dogma. Sometimes, if supposedly educated people won't accept the law of non-contradiction (Christianity and Islam cannot both teach the truth about God) maybe they need to be upset a little bit.

You are correct in that if these people were sitting in front of me I would be more tactful, but I would at some point be compelled to tell them the utter absurdity of their position in this matter. And it might not be the nicest thing to say to them because their very worldview would be offended by the assertion of absolute truth. In fact that very assertion may be more offensive to such a mindset than any name one could call them.

As for the comment about the liberal, PC yuppies, I have a couple of stern Michael Moore type liberal kids and they wouldn't but this! This is cool aid MY generation imbibes. And it seems to be endemic among well eduacated PC types.

Why does everything have to be politicized? This has nothing to do with politics, it's about bad theology and bad doctrine. Christ is neither a conservative nor a liberal. If the best argument you can come up with against what this woman teaches is that it is the kind of doctrine held by "well educated PC types", then you sound like you are praising ignorance and poor education. (And by the way, you misspelt "education". ) If you think her doctrine is wrong, say why it's wrong. It's wrong because it is the heresy of Arianism, not because she is a "liberal" (which you have no way of knowing anyway). The Christology of the Book of Mormon is Arianism and Sabellianism, but there are plenty of conservative Mormons. A doctrine is not "wrong" simply because it is held by "liberals" or "conservatives". There is no "liberal Christian Dogma" or "conservative Christian Dogma" or "feminist Christian Dogma" or "Marxist Christian Dogma" or "functionalist Christian Dogma". There is only "Christian Dogma", and what this woman holds is not Christian Dogma. That is the issue.

You are correct in that if these people were sitting in front of me I would be more tactful,

And what is the difference? This isn't an accusation, but rather an examination of why we do the things we do. Why is it that we feel we can say things tactlessly in a public forum available to anyone on the internet, yet would be more tactful in person? Why should the anonymity of an internet forum make any difference to how we behave towards others as Christians? Do we think that we will not be held accountable on the Day of Judgement for what we have said on this forum simply because we typed it into a computer? "Virtual life" troubles me. The idea that we are somehow allowed to be a "different person" online to the one who was baptised a Christian when we are in internet forums simply because we go by a username rather than our baptisimal name is hersesy as far as I can see. We can only have one hypostasis, not two.

Personally, I think we will all be held even more accountable for what we say on internet forums because:

a) Each of us who claims to be an Orthodox Christian is an Ambassador for Christ to everyone who reads this forum. We will be held to account for any soul that is lost because of what we have said.

b) We could say something sinful here, and our lives on earth might end before we have a chance to retract it or modify our post or ask forgiveness from those we have offended. Our written word continues to live even after we're dead.

c) Our audience is much wider, and the damage our sin can do is therefore increased.

« Last Edit: June 10, 2007, 01:46:01 PM by ozgeorge »

Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

Having been in a conservative episcopal group (The ICCEC, no affiliation with the ECUSA or the Anglican church), I never understood those conservative episcopalians that want to "fight from within". Can't they see that 'the glory has departed" is written above the door of every episcopal church??

Umm, no. I would suggest that perhaps those who are not part of a Church body may not see some things that are still there. May one ask if you were ever part of ECUSA before you were with the ICCEC?

Quote

They should just become Orthodox,

How? As EO? The WRO are thin on the ground and controversial at times to other EO to boot.

Quote

They should just come on home to the Orthodox church

How can a place be "home" if one has never lived there? I've written this before, if at some future point the only place I believed I could go was the EO it would not be "home" but an exile.

One may live in a foreign place, come to terms with it and even perhaps settle down. But at least for some it would never be Home.

Ebor

Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

Ebor, if I offended you in any way I am sorry. The word "chick" was meant to describe the behavior of this supposedly educated cleric. I didn't use the word "airhead" although that's what she came off as, or as a "Valley Girl" from the 80's.

There is a difference between looking at her ideas as being conflicted or illogical and using perjoratives and labels of disdain on another person.

Quote

If I met her face to face I'd probably say, "what the heck are you thinking?"

And if it were phrased like that, it is likely that the woman would get the impression that you didn't really want to know her thoughts, but had already had a negative view of her. How do you react when someone you don't know might address you that way?

Quote

I mean what else can you say? Beside the fact that her soul is in danger, this is utter stupidity.

"How do you reconcile the Trinity with the Muslim view of God?" "What do you base your beliefs on?" "Who do you believe Jesus to be?" "How do you look on some of the practices involving treatment of women in some parts of the world such as Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan?"

I can think of others. Asking people questions about what they think or believe as opposed to being accusatory.

Quote

As for the comment about the liberal, PC yuppies, I have a couple of stern Michael Moore type liberal kids and they wouldn't buy this! They are closer to the idea that all religions are dangerous than to be stupidly enamoured with such syncretism. I also do not think your average working guy would buy this either. So who is left? The affluent late boomers who are certainly are not conservative in doctrine and whose PC dogma would make them ripe for something like this.

But unless you personally have experience with that Cathedral/diocese and its people you have made generalizations and perjorative remarks about human beings that you do not know anything about. Your opinions about who might or might not be part of the Episcopalians in that area are not the same as the real people.

Quote

Ebor, I don't know if you can love everyone into the kingdom or into orthodox dogma. Sometimes, if supposedly educated people won't accept the law of non-contradiction (Christianity and Islam cannot both teach the truth about God) maybe they need to be upset a little bit.

And the possibility of 'upsetting' a visitor to this forum with such remarks will then convince them that EO is correct?

Quote

You are correct in that if these people were sitting in front of me I would be more tactful, but I would at some point be compelled to tell them the utter absurdity of their position in this matter. And it might not be the nicest thing to say to them because their very worldview would be offended by the assertion of absolute truth. In fact that very assertion may be more offensive to such a mindset than any name one could call them.

Perhaps if you were sitting down with someone one with such ideas, you might listen to them as well as talk so that you could find out what lead to them to such things. Then that could be addressed rather then just preaching at them.

Ebor

Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

Why does everything have to be politicized? This has nothing to do with politics, it's about bad theology and bad doctrine. Christ is neither a conservative nor a liberal. If the best argument you can come up with against what this woman teaches is that it is the kind of doctrine held by "well educated PC types", then you sound like you are praising ignorance and poor education. (And by the way, you misspelt "education". ) If you think her doctrine is wrong, say why it's wrong. It's wrong because it is the heresy of Arianism, not because she is a "liberal" (which you have no way of knowing anyway).

An excellent post, OzGeorge. Thank you for this.

Quote

And what is the difference? This isn't an accusation, but rather an examination of why we do the things we do. Why is it that we feel we can say things tactlessly in a public forum available to anyone on the internet, yet would be more tactful in person? Why should the anonymity of an internet forum make any difference to how we behave towards others as Christians? Do we think that we will not be held accountable on the Day of Judgement for what we have said on this forum simply because we typed it into a computer? "Virtual life" troubles me. The idea that we are somehow allowed to be a "different person" online to the one who was baptised a Christian when we are in internet forums simply because we go by a username rather than our baptisimal name is hersesy as far as I can see. We can only have one hypostasis, not two.

A friend of mine come up with a name for the situation of people on line acting differently then they do in person: "CRT Induced Personality Disorder" If there were an applause emoticon here, I would be using it for the above paragraph.

Ebor

Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

Sorry ebor, something became garbled. In my previous post: "I didn't say that individuals of the diocese are anti Christ but that the diocese is (being-unquote) anti Christ to endorse apostacy.

Thank you for clearing things. I would suggest that we do not know if the diocese does "endorse" apostasy. She does not seem to have any office or job with them, from what I have found. We don't know what, if anything, has been said with the Bishop. We are on a 'Net forum, and are not intimately involved with diocesan operations. But it's all too easy to make declarations about things of which little is known.

Quote

Any Christian communion calling itself such should have any minister defrocked for embracing anti Christianity; is this not just common sense?

We don't know what might be happening or whether she will resign her orders or what. It would seem at the moment that she is not functioning as an Episcopal priest. Sometimes just waiting to see what happens is a good idea.

Quote

I have communicated to an anguished Episcopalian blogger (different but similar matter- unquote) (and I should talk to more) offering the Western rite of Orthodoxy of the Antiochian diocese as an option;

Quote

she needs prayer.

And on that we can agree, but then again, we *all* need prayer.

With respect,

Ebor

Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

And what is the difference? This isn't an accusation, but rather an examination of why we do the things we do. Why is it that we feel we can say things tactlessly in a public forum available to anyone on the internet, yet would be more tactful in person? Why should the anonymity of an internet forum make any difference to how we behave towards others as Christians? Do we think that we will not be held accountable on the Day of Judgement for what we have said on this forum simply because we typed it into a computer? "Virtual life" troubles me. The idea that we are somehow allowed to be a "different person" online to the one who was baptised a Christian when we are in internet forums simply because we go by a username rather than our baptisimal name is hersesy as far as I can see. We can only have one hypostasis, not two.

In concert with Ebor, I applaud you, sir!

As someone who once spent alot of time on another messageboard picking fights with people and being generally mean on the internet whilst being not-so-mean in real life (but still generally sarcastic), I can only say that it took a while to realize the paradox I was living, but once I did, I found it was incredibly easy to make amends, at least to the point of a non-escalation truce, of sorts. Being a recovered IA (Internet A...... (you fill in the blanks) takes some time and you really have to force yourself to not hit that "Post" button immediately after typing something in the big white box.

You are who you are and you should be putting that forth on the internet. A good rule of thumb that I've learned to follow is to imagine my mother standing in the room. If I wouldn't say what I'm thinking in that way around her*, I shouldn't be posting it on the internet.

* This transcends the "what" I'm saying as opposed to the "how" I'm saying it, which I think is more important.

Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen

And WE count St. Edward the Confessor as a saint as well. That also makes Anglo-Saxon England Catholic, according to your logic. And why not? East and West were not formally divided yet.

I'm talking about the silly myth about pre-1066 England being closer to Constantinople than to Rome. My eyes glaze over when I hear that bedtime story peddled, turning what was a dynastic dispute into a religious one. The myth also rests on the historically dubious date of 1054.

And WE count St. Edward the Confessor as a saint as well. That also makes Anglo-Saxon England Catholic, according to your logic. And why not? East and West were not formally divided yet.

I'm talking about the silly myth about pre-1066 England being closer to Constantinople than to Rome. My eyes glaze over when I hear that bedtime story peddled, turning what was a dynastic dispute into a religious one. The myth also rests on the historically dubious date of 1054.

Not EO, but Orthodox until the native bishops were replaced by Latin ones.

Ummm, I'm not sure as to what you mean by "Latin" bishops. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle tells of various abbots and bishops going to Rome and of bishops recieving their Pall from the Bishop of Rome.

"A.D. 989. This year died Abbot Edwin, and Abbot Wulfgar succeeded to the abbacy. Siric was this year invested archbishop, and went afterwards to Rome after his pall. "

"A.D. 1007. In this year was the tribute paid to the hostile army; that was, 30,000 pounds. In this year also was Edric appointed alderman over all the kingdom of the Mercians. This year went Bishop Elfeah to Rome after his pall."

"A.D. 1022. This year went King Knute out with his ships to the Isle of Wight. And Bishop Ethelnoth went to Rome; where he was received with much honour by Benedict the magnificent pope, who with his own hand placed the pall upon him, and with great pomp consecrated him archbishop, and blessed him, on the nones of October. The archbishop on the self-same day with the same pall performed mass, as the pope directed him, after which he was magnificently entertained by the pope himself; and afterwards with a full blessing proceeded homewards. Abbot Leofwine, who had been unjustly expelled from Ely, was his companion; and he cleared himself of everything, which, as the pope informed him, had been laid to his charge, on the testimony of the archbishop and of all the company that were with him."

If the fathers of the EO church consider King Edward the Confessor an Orthodox saint, then Saxon England was Orthodox.

There have been other threads on the forum on this (and yes, I have been part of them since one of my hobbies is Anglo Saxon history, literature and language. One may say that Anglo Saxon England was Catholic and the records show that it was linked to Rome.

The labels of "Orthodox" and "Catholic" now have, shall we say, connotations and meanings that were and are not applicable to before the Schism, I don't think. Anglo Saxon England was Christian and one of the parts of Christendom. The Norman Conquest, as can be read of in such primary sources as the Anglo Saxon Chronicle, was political not religious.

Ebor

Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

And WE count St. Edward the Confessor as a saint as well. That also makes Anglo-Saxon England Catholic, according to your logic. And why not? East and West were not formally divided yet.

As do the Anglicans.

Quote

I'm talking about the silly myth about pre-1066 England being closer to Constantinople than to Rome. My eyes glaze over when I hear that bedtime story peddled, turning what was a dynastic dispute into a religious one. The myth also rests on the historically dubious date of 1054.

Were you here on the forum when this was discussed before? I'm sorry, but I've forgotten.

Ebor

Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

Were you here on the forum when this was discussed before? I'm sorry, but I've forgotten.

Ebor

I do not remember. Perhaps I was. I have heard it before in other places, but always from Orthodox polemicists and nowhere else---certainly not from scholars, save a certain Vladimir Moss, a former Anglican who is now part of a small Russian Orthodox schismatic group. This zealot pitches this propaganda to Anglicans so they leave their supposedly bankrupt tradition and come "home" to Orthodoxy (of course, not the Orthodoxy of the heretic-ecumenist-modernist-popish-freemason EP and MP (and ROCOR) but that of the "true" Orthodox).

Ummm, I'm not sure as to what you mean by "Latin" bishops. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle tells of various abbots and bishops going to Rome and of bishops recieving their Pall from the Bishop of Rome.

"A.D. 989. This year died Abbot Edwin, and Abbot Wulfgar succeeded to the abbacy. Siric was this year invested archbishop, and went afterwards to Rome after his pall. "

"A.D. 1007. In this year was the tribute paid to the hostile army; that was, 30,000 pounds. In this year also was Edric appointed alderman over all the kingdom of the Mercians. This year went Bishop Elfeah to Rome after his pall."

"A.D. 1022. This year went King Knute out with his ships to the Isle of Wight. And Bishop Ethelnoth went to Rome; where he was received with much honour by Benedict the magnificent pope, who with his own hand placed the pall upon him, and with great pomp consecrated him archbishop, and blessed him, on the nones of October. The archbishop on the self-same day with the same pall performed mass, as the pope directed him, after which he was magnificently entertained by the pope himself; and afterwards with a full blessing proceeded homewards. Abbot Leofwine, who had been unjustly expelled from Ely, was his companion; and he cleared himself of everything, which, as the pope informed him, had been laid to his charge, on the testimony of the archbishop and of all the company that were with him."

I do not remember. Perhaps I was. I have heard it before in other places, but always from Orthodox polemicists and nowhere else---

Yes, I've seen it, and written about it myself.

Quote

certainly not from scholars, save a certain Vladimir Moss, a former Anglican who is now part of a small Russian Orthodox schismatic group.

I can assure you that I am familiar with Mr. Moss and his writings. I knew that he is English, though that does not guarantee that he was Anglican; the interview with him that can be read on-line only mentions that he came from "the family of a British Diplomat".

I would not consider him any kind of scholar of history. By his own words his degrees were in philosophy and psychology, and he has not demostrated that he is qualified in interpreting or teaching true History. A particularly egregious case is his promotion of the "Deathbed Prophecy of Edward the Confessor" that has serious differences from the one quote on the New Advent site which includes the document that it comes from. Mr. Moss' version does not. It also has historical errors in it.

If you are thinking of ROAC as his currant jurisdiction, the last I knew he'd left them too.

Quote

This zealot pitches this propaganda to Anglicans so they leave their supposedly bankrupt tradition and come "home" to Orthodoxy (of course, not the Orthodoxy of the heretic-ecumenist-modernist-popish-freemason EP and MP (and ROCOR) but that of the "true" Orthodox).

Yes, I am of the same view on this and the aim. I also don't buy it and regard the continued promotion of such things as the undocumented and erroneous "Prophecy" as a lie to try and lure people in. Using such a thing to try and get people to join one's group is hardly showing of the group's Truth and righteousness.

Ebor

Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

I would also say that the Norman and Plantagenet kings were often much more hostile to papal jurisdiction than their Anglo-Saxon predecessors (though certainly part of that was because of the dreadfully weak papacy of the 10th century---however, knowing Normans, they would have simply dominated the popes had they not been figures like Gregory VII, Urban II, and Innocent III). Under Vladimir Moss's logic, kings like William Rufus, Henry II and John were Orthodox (they may have been, depending on which century you place the final break of communion between East and West ).

Ozgeorge and EborI obviously touched a nerve and offended you both. For that I apologize. If you only knew how much time I normally spend (too much) composing and editing and modifying most of my longer posts , you would realize that I don't have all that much of a posting personality vs. real personality. Occassionally, however, I try to get cute or clever and get myself into trouble.

I would like to think that, overall, I attempt to be tactful, repectful and polite in my posts, so I plead for a "mulligan" here!

Any visitors who my posts on this subject might have offended, I likewise apologize.

Ummm, I'm not sure as to what you mean by "Latin" bishops. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle tells of various abbots and bishops going to Rome and of bishops recieving their Pall from the Bishop of Rome.

"Latin" as the Pope himself encouraged those invading forces to aid in bringing the local bishops in line with Rome or more usually their replacement with his bishops.

Quote

"A.D. 989. This year died Abbot Edwin, and Abbot Wulfgar succeeded to the abbacy. Siric was this year invested archbishop, and went afterwards to Rome after his pall. "

"A.D. 1007. In this year was the tribute paid to the hostile army; that was, 30,000 pounds. In this year also was Edric appointed alderman over all the kingdom of the Mercians. This year went Bishop Elfeah to Rome after his pall."

"A.D. 1022. This year went King Knute out with his ships to the Isle of Wight. And Bishop Ethelnoth went to Rome; where he was received with much honour by Benedict the magnificent pope, who with his own hand placed the pall upon him, and with great pomp consecrated him archbishop, and blessed him, on the nones of October. The archbishop on the self-same day with the same pall performed mass, as the pope directed him, after which he was magnificently entertained by the pope himself; and afterwards with a full blessing proceeded homewards. Abbot Leofwine, who had been unjustly expelled from Ely, was his companion; and he cleared himself of everything, which, as the pope informed him, had been laid to his charge, on the testimony of the archbishop and of all the company that were with him."

And WE count St. Edward the Confessor as a saint as well. That also makes Anglo-Saxon England Catholic, according to your logic. And why not? East and West were not formally divided yet.

I'm talking about the silly myth about pre-1066 England being closer to Constantinople than to Rome. My eyes glaze over when I hear that bedtime story peddled, turning what was a dynastic dispute into a religious one. The myth also rests on the historically dubious date of 1054.

It not a matter of being "close" to any eastern bishop, but one of being 'close' to Rome which many pre-1066 bishops were not.

Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides

You posted some terrific stuff (and some great links to old MSS, some of which I do not have in my bookmarks). Sigh . . . Anglo-Saxon studies. Takes me back to college---I was on quite an A-S kick back then---classes in Old English linguistics, literature, history, art, even archaeology. I salute you.

Ozgeorge and EborI obviously touched a nerve and offended you both. For that I apologize. If you only knew how much time I normally spend (too much) composing and editing and modifying most of my longer posts , you would realize that I don't have all that much of a posting personality vs. real personality. Occassionally, however, I try to get cute or clever and get myself into trouble.

I would like to think that, overall, I attempt to be tactful, repectful and polite in my posts, so I plead for a "mulligan" here!

Any visitors who my posts on this subject might have offended, I likewise apologize.

As you wrote, your posts have generally been respectful and polite, which is why your perjorative name-calling and apparent disdain for and labeling of persons that you did not know was surprising to me. In that regard, you did not offend me *personally*, for you said nothing offensive directed at me.

It seemed though that the lady in question as well as any persons that she may have dealt with in her post at the Cathedral were ummm "easy targets"? It is sometimes a temptation to denigrate others, and that can happen without thinking of the real people, and in that way feel some kind of superiority to them. I've felt that myself, I assure you, and try to resist. I hope that I am explaining myself clearly and in a non-accusatory way.

Ebor

Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

"Latin" as the Pope himself encouraged those invading forces to aid in bringing the local bishops in line with Rome or more usually their replacement with his bishops.

Would you please give some historical examples so that I can more clearly understand what you might mean? Thank you in advance.

Quote

Thanks for this additional info. But of course an Anglican such as yourself will view history from an Anglo-Saxon perspective. Not all the isles were A/S.

<Insert emoticon of one raised eyebrow> ?? I'm not clear as to what Church I belong to has to do with looking at Primary Sources for historical understanding. It does not, I don't think, apply in my study of Japanese History or Norse History or Montana History.

I am very aware that much of the British Isles were not "A/S". (Many of my own ancestors being Scots). But the subject addressed was the Anglo Saxons and the Normans and the time period prior to and somewhat after 1066. So the conditions in Scotland or Ireland weren't being addressed, (though they can be if wanted. Recall that the real McBeth was king of Scots from 1040-1057 during the times of the Norman Conquest. But it was Malcolm III who reigned and had spent some years at the court of Edward the Confessor, and gave sanctuary to Harald's brother Tostig for a while.. I could go on but shouldn't )

Ebor

« Last Edit: June 15, 2007, 07:21:01 PM by Ebor »

Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

You posted some terrific stuff (and some great links to old MSS, some of which I do not have in my bookmarks). Sigh . . . Anglo-Saxon studies. Takes me back to college---I was on quite an A-S kick back then---classes in Old English linguistics, literature, history, art, even archaeology. I salute you.

I'm glad that you found them interesting. Did you go into any of the Norse sagas and history and other topics too, since they're closely twined with the Anglo-Saxons?

Would you please give some historical examples so that I can more clearly understand what you might mean? Thank you in advance.

Actually, I was referring to the English Latin (under Rome) bishops replacing Irish bishops in the late 12th century as described in Sally McKee's Uncommon Dominion.

Quote

<Insert emoticon of one raised eyebrow> ?? I'm not clear as to what Church I belong to has to do with looking at Primary Sources for historical understanding. It does not, I don't think, apply in my study of Japanese History or Norse History or Montana History.

Only to the extent that you assume I was referring to Anglo-Saxons at all. Lubeltri was using a date (before 1066) as the time period of his argument and not, as far as I could tell, making an ethnic statement

Quote

I am very aware that much of the British Isles were not "A/S". (Many of my own ancestors being Scots). But the subject addressed was the Anglo Saxons and the Normans and the time period prior to and somewhat after 1066. So the conditions in Scotland or Ireland weren't being addressed, (though they can be if wanted. Recall that the real McBeth was king of Scots from 1040-1057 during the times of the Norman Conquest. But it was Malcolm III who reigned and had spent some years at the court of Edward the Confessor, and gave sanctuary to Harald's brother Tostig for a while.. I could go on but shouldn't )

As you see, I was addressing Ireland. Lubeltri must prove to me, however, that pre-1066, bishops anywhere on the isles were under Rome (and therefore out of communion with the remaining Church). He mistakes 'closeness with Constantinople' (?) as indicating being Orthodox apparently. That would not be necessary to be considered 'in the Catholic Church' or Orthodox.

Along with McKee's book, I must source my assertion on the replacement of English bishops post 1066. I wouldn't make it up but must remember if I got it off the History Channel or read it.

Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides

As you wrote, your posts have generally been respectful and polite, which is why your perjorative name-calling and apparent disdain for and labeling of persons that you did not know was surprising to me. In that regard, you did not offend me *personally*, for you said nothing offensive directed at me.

It seemed though that the lady in question as well as any persons that she may have dealt with in her post at the Cathedral were ummm "easy targets"? It is sometimes a temptation to denigrate others, and that can happen without thinking of the real people, and in that way feel some kind of superiority to them. I've felt that myself, I assure you, and try to resist. I hope that I am explaining myself clearly and in a non-accusatory way.

Ebor

I understand and appreciate your insights.

BTW, I was in a mainline denomination before converting to Orthodoxy, so I know what it is like being in a broad theological context. It's very frustrating. Perhaps reading about this unfortunate situation took me back to a place I am glad I no longer find myself and triggered the worst response.

When I wrote "closeness to Constantinople," I meant Eastern in theology and against papal primacy in ecclesiology. Pre-1066 England was neither. England was Roman canonical territory before and after the conquest. It worshipped according to Roman rites. It was in the Western tradition. Its bishops received the pall from the Bishop of Rome, including the one who crowned Harold king.

When I wrote "closeness to Constantinople," I meant Eastern in theology and against papal primacy in ecclesiology. Pre-1066 England was neither. England was Roman canonical territory before and after the conquest. It worshipped according to Roman rites. It was in the Western tradition. Its bishops received the pall from the Bishop of Rome, including the one who crowned Harold king.

I think we're having a tangential disagreement here. 1) Once again, papal supremacy is NOT theology.2) As you read above, I took your 1066 as a date, not area and was speaking of Ireland (which work I cited did cover with the replacement of Irish bishops - not England per se.3) I have read were the pope did actively encourage the Normans - now to locate that source (it's not on my list of really important things to do). 'Til then well, we're on hold here

Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides

BTW, I was in a mainline denomination before converting to Orthodoxy, so I know what it is like being in a broad theological context. It's very frustrating. Perhaps reading about this unfortunate situation took me back to a place I am glad I no longer find myself and triggered the worst response.

A "Button" being pushed, as it were? Being aware of ones 'hot buttons' can be helpful so that an untoward response won't be triggered. May one ask what Church you were part of before becoming EO? If you prefer to not say, I apologize for asking.

Quote

Anyway good providence to you as you hang in there.

Thank you

Ebor

Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

A "Button" being pushed, as it were? Being aware of ones 'hot buttons' can be helpful so that an untoward response won't be triggered. May one ask what Church you were part of before becoming EO? If you prefer to not say, I apologize for asking.

Thank you

Ebor

PCUSA (Presbyterian, mainline)My sister's church, where I used to attend, just withdrew and applied for membership in the Evangelical Presbyterian Church.

Actually, that is precisely what I wanted to get away from - leaving denominations that constantly grew more liberal as you progressed through years away from the founders' vision, and needing to start another one. The idea of a 2,000 year old church, basically unchanged (by comparison) was a huge attraction for me toward Orthodoxy

An update on this story. It turns out that while the Rev. Ms. Redding lives in the state of Washington, she is canonically resident in Rhode Island. That is though not living there for some time, her orders/her bishop of authority is not +Olympia but +Rhode Island. The holder of that diocese is the Right Rev. Geralyn Wolf. Ms. Redding's canonical residence in RI goes back for quite some time, though she has not served there for over 2 decades, much longer then Bp. Wolf had had the see (since 1996). I point this out because, it is likely that Bp. Wolf has not had dealings with Ms. Redding, living as she did on the other side of the US, so did not know what was happening with this one person. Maybe she was a name on a list of clergy and a bishop has lots of other things to deal with.

On the Stand Firm site is news from "Titus One Nine" that Bp. Wolf has inhibited Ms. Redding for the period of one year as part of a Pastoral Directive for her to think over her beliefs, her calling as a priest and the conflicts that Bp. Wolf sees in them. That means that she may not function in anyway as priest or deacon.

Thanks for that Ebor! And I commend Bp. Wolf for her actions, as well as the charity with which she executed them.Out of curiosity, given the unusual circumstances that Rev. Redding was working in a diocese other than her own when her bishop suspended her, is there a possibility that the Bishop of the Diocese in which she is working can overturn the decision to suspend her, and continue to allow her to function as a Priest in his diocese?

« Last Edit: July 05, 2007, 08:43:39 PM by ozgeorge »

Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

Out of curiosity, given the unusual circumstances that Rev. Redding was working in a diocese other than her own when her bishop suspended her, is there a possibility that the Bishop of the Diocese in which she is working can overturn the decision to suspend her, and continue to allow her to function as a Priest in his diocese?

No. She would have to be transferred to his diocese with a letter dimissory. The only thing he can do is bar her from exercising her ministry in his diocese.

If Dr. Redding (my apologies for not using her title correctly in my earlier post) were to function in any clerical way while inhibited it would be extremely serious in breaking Church order and the same if +Olympia permitted her to do so in his diocese. I don't think there is any way for an inhibited priest to transfer canonical residency; it's all at the pleasure of the bishop in authority (who would have imposed the inhibition).

Ebor

Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

Don't they make some pill for that problem? Seems they have one for everyother problem, just thought they might have one for this?

At this point I'm betting she's just a masocist, not that there's anything wrong with that at all, I'm as much a fan of le Marquis De Sade as any...I just wish she'd restrict her preferences to the bedroom.

The word has come down today that Redding was defrocked by Bishop Wolf after she refused to recant.

I am actually surprised at this point that they even bother acting like there are standards.

Hang on. As soon as Redding was found to be in heresy, she was suspended by he Bishop, and could not function as an Anglican Priest anwhere. The Defrocking is simply the final act after 2 years of investigation and her lack of repentance. It's not as if the Episcopal Church didn't act or even acted slowly in this case.

« Last Edit: April 02, 2009, 02:45:48 AM by ozgeorge »

Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

The word has come down today that Redding was defrocked by Bishop Wolf after she refused to recant.

I am actually surprised at this point that they even bother acting like there are standards.

Hang on. As soon as Redding was found to be in heresy, she was suspended by he Bishop, and could not function as an Anglican Priest anwhere. The Defrocking is simply the final act after 2 years of investigation and her lack of repentance. It's not as if the Episcopal Church didn't act or even acted slowly in this case.

I think the point is that with all of the "nutty" things that the Anglicans and Episcopalians do there seems to be little point in doing something as sensible as defrocking her.

With their ordination of women, openly practicing homosexuals (both male and female) and this elevation of a bishop who claims to practice dual faiths this show of standards does appear to be a bit out of place.

The word has come down today that Redding was defrocked by Bishop Wolf after she refused to recant.

I am actually surprised at this point that they even bother acting like there are standards.

Hang on. As soon as Redding was found to be in heresy, she was suspended by he Bishop, and could not function as an Anglican Priest anwhere. The Defrocking is simply the final act after 2 years of investigation and her lack of repentance. It's not as if the Episcopal Church didn't act or even acted slowly in this case.

I think the point is that with all of the "nutty" things that the Anglicans and Episcopalians do there seems to be little point in doing something as sensible as defrocking her.

With their ordination of women, openly practicing homosexuals (both male and female) and this elevation of a bishop who claims to practice dual faiths this show of standards does appear to be a bit out of place.

The bishop-elect of the diocese of Northern Michigan (whose case I've been watching very closely, of course) does not claim to be a Buddhist. He certainly practices Zen meditation, but within the context of his Christian faith. A Buddhist is someone who has actually taken refuge in the Buddha, the Dharma, and the Sangha. Thew Forrester, to my knowledge, has not done so.

The Archbishop of Canterbury was inducted into the Gorsedd of the Bards, a Welsh society of great contributors to Welsh life. (The Archbishop had been Archbishop of Wales.) The society's "druidry" has no connection to paganism.

Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.Extra caritatem nulla salus.In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness". सर्वभूतहितἌνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas GandhiY dduw bo'r diolch.

Why was the priest who claimed to also be a druid similarly defrocked?

Do you mean the Archbishop of Canterbury?

<Insert emoticon of banging one's head on the keyboard>

No, not the Archbishop of Canterbury! SIGH! As has been stated he is a member of a Welsh organization that honours those who support and contribute to that culture.

If the above was not meant as merely a cheap shot at humour at another Church's expense and an answer is actually wanted, then it is likely that the person being referred to is William Melnyk from a case about 4 1/2 years ago if I recall correctly. He is no longer a priest.

Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

Actually, no. He has not been elevated yet. His election is yet to be approved by the Bishops.

If the Episcopal Church is anything like the Lutheran synods the Bishops very rarely (if ever) overturn an election. He will likely be elevated in spite of his insistence that Zen meditation is not contradictory to Christianity.

But honestly, after the ordination of women and openly practicing homosexuals does it make a difference? They've already acted in ways completely contrary to Christianity. Nothing else is really all that surprising.

It's not at all clear that Forrester up in N. Mich. is going to get his consents. Thus far most bishops who have announced their decision have voted against him, though the total thus far is quite small.

The people at StandFirm are keeping count here, and David Virtue is keeping count here. The number of consents required is a bit blurry, what between rump and vacant thrones and the fact that Ed Gulick is bishop in one of the rump dioceses as well as in Kentucky. Best guess on this is 102 bishops and 108 standing committees, of which a majority of both is needed. Therefore 52 bishops and 55 SCs have to commit.

So far 28 bishops have announced they are not consenting, with two saying that will not say. (One of those, Geralyn Wolf, is reckoned to be a "no"-- see discussion above.) 10 bishops have consented. Of Gulick gets a vote for each throne, that would add another no. 23 more no responses would sink Forrester's consecration. It's hard to guess how this will go, as most bishops counted as more-or-less conservative have announced they are not consenting. THe cutoff date for consents is about 25 June.

It has been officially announced that Forrester failed to get the necessary consents, so Northern Michigan will have to have another election. It is possible for them to reelect Forrester, though I suspect that he would fail again.

Ann Holmes Redding (the Muslim-Christian) speaks (she is the second speaker here) at an Interfaith meeting, St. Mark's Cathedral, Seattle, 6 November, 2010.

Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.Extra caritatem nulla salus.In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness". सर्वभूतहितἌνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas GandhiY dduw bo'r diolch.

I confess that I don't know too much about Anglicanism/Episcopalianism, but I suspect that this woman and her hosts at St. Mark's, are not true representatives. But then again, perhaps they are. When Henry decided he made a matrimonial mistake, rather than take responsibility and try to do right, he simply called up 'ol Scratch and the two of them crafted an evil facsimile of the One, True Church. One of the best scenarios of Protestantism one can think of. Fast forward to today and it's really no surprise at all that we have people calling themselves "priests" and "bishops" in this religion. I mean, they call themselves "Christians" so why not? Here we have a "church" that is dedicated to the Holy Apostle and Saint, Mark. Yet inside we find a woman extolling the virtues of Paganism and beckoning us to pray to "Mother Earth". The next speaker is not only an idiot (academically speaking), she makes a complete mockery out of Christianity. The Bible and Qu'ran are at complete, opposite odds with one another and any person who believes otherwise, especially someone who supposedly holds a PhD. is nothing but a disillusioned hack. The same should be said for her religion that allows for this stupidity.

Logged

"The Scots-Irish; Brewed in Scotland, bottled in Ireland, uncorked in America." ~Scots-Irish saying

45 seconds?!! I could only stomach 15 seconds. What a joke. What are these people doing inside a church? Honestly?

PoorFoolNicholas, behold the Episcopalian church, you will never find a more wretched hive of ecumenism and religious syncretism. star wars reference ftw

Seriously though, they pull this insanity all the time. And as a result, nobody takes them seriously except as a Seattle cultural item, and a tourist attraction/cool thing to see for their Gregorian chant Vespers.

You don't even have to take my word for it, here's an image banner from their website.

And they have an icon of the Theotokos, for some reason, in a small shrine. That would be where the bowl of sand with the candles is from.

LOL @ 9:29 - Someone may say "But Jesus, you seem so far away!" And Jesus says, "Sit with Cedar and Raven. They will teach you about me." BWHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! Classic!

This is the clearest example of worship to the Great Whatever that I have yet seen.

Seriously, every video part of this series is totally hilarious (and disturbing)! Thanks for posting this; made my night.

Part 1-Entry and Opening the Directions: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gpXUlk5_tvM&feature=related 3:17 is special. She calls in the spirits of the winds. I didn't know invocations of spirits was permitted in "Christian" churches. I suppose it's fitting that the altar faces West. Oh, and holy crap at 6:57. Seriously, watch it.

LOL @ 9:29 - Someone may say "But Jesus, you seem so far away!" And Jesus says, "Sit with Cedar and Raven. They will teach you about me." BWHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! Classic!

This is the clearest example of worship to the Great Whatever that I have yet seen.

Seriously, every video part of this series is totally hilarious (and disturbing)! Thanks for posting this; made my night.

Part 1-Entry and Opening the Directions: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gpXUlk5_tvM&feature=related 3:17 is special. She calls in the spirits of the winds. I didn't know invocations of spirits was permitted in "Christian" churches. I suppose it's fitting that the altar faces West. Oh, and holy crap at 6:57. Seriously, watch it.

Is that in a church and they're supposed to be Christians? They outdo even the Baha'i in their crazy mishmash of desperate beings that they invoke... they must really believe there is nothing bad in the universe or they would be more cautious. I won't be surprised when they start invoking Satan by name.

LOL @ 9:29 - Someone may say "But Jesus, you seem so far away!" And Jesus says, "Sit with Cedar and Raven. They will teach you about me." BWHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! Classic!

This is the clearest example of worship to the Great Whatever that I have yet seen.

Seriously, every video part of this series is totally hilarious (and disturbing)! Thanks for posting this; made my night.

Part 1-Entry and Opening the Directions: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gpXUlk5_tvM&feature=related 3:17 is special. She calls in the spirits of the winds. I didn't know invocations of spirits was permitted in "Christian" churches. I suppose it's fitting that the altar faces West. Oh, and holy crap at 6:57. Seriously, watch it.

Wow! I had to stop watching it. It was just to weird to watch a middle-class, white American woman act like an old Indian shaman. When she asked her 'spirits' to 'shape-shift' the world, well, then it went from weird to creepy...

LOL @ 9:29 - Someone may say "But Jesus, you seem so far away!" And Jesus says, "Sit with Cedar and Raven. They will teach you about me." BWHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! Classic!

This is the clearest example of worship to the Great Whatever that I have yet seen.

Seriously, every video part of this series is totally hilarious (and disturbing)! Thanks for posting this; made my night.

Part 1-Entry and Opening the Directions: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gpXUlk5_tvM&feature=related 3:17 is special. She calls in the spirits of the winds. I didn't know invocations of spirits was permitted in "Christian" churches. I suppose it's fitting that the altar faces West. Oh, and holy crap at 6:57. Seriously, watch it.

I confess that I don't know too much about Anglicanism/Episcopalianism, but I suspect that this woman and her hosts at St. Mark's, are not true representatives. But then again, perhaps they are.

No they're not. If you would like to know some real information about Anglican Christianity, please ask.

Quote

When Henry decided he made a matrimonial mistake, rather than take responsibility and try to do right, he simply called up 'ol Scratch and the two of them crafted an evil facsimile of the One, True Church.

Sigh. No, that is not historically accurate nor what happened. There is a thread here on OC.net about the historical context and truth of what happened at that time regarding the politics and other complications.

Quote

Fast forward to today and it's really no surprise at all that we have people calling themselves "priests" and "bishops" in this religion. I mean, they call themselves "Christians" so why not? Here we have a "church" that is dedicated to the Holy Apostle and Saint, Mark.

Because we are Christians...no quotes needed. and in my Church they *are* priests and bishops and the building is a church.

Just to remind people. Dr. Ann Holmes Redding was defrocked by her bishop after pastoral counseling and inhibition. What she says is her own words and not anything official from the Episcopal Church nor the Anglican Communion.

I wonder if this is what OzGeorge called the "purple demons" again, with pokes and uncharitable remarks against other human beings and other Churches.

Sigh again.

Ebor

Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

LOL @ 9:29 - Someone may say "But Jesus, you seem so far away!" And Jesus says, "Sit with Cedar and Raven. They will teach you about me." BWHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! Classic!

This is the clearest example of worship to the Great Whatever that I have yet seen.

Seriously, every video part of this series is totally hilarious (and disturbing)! Thanks for posting this; made my night.

Part 1-Entry and Opening the Directions: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gpXUlk5_tvM&feature=related 3:17 is special. She calls in the spirits of the winds. I didn't know invocations of spirits was permitted in "Christian" churches. I suppose it's fitting that the altar faces West. Oh, and holy crap at 6:57. Seriously, watch it.

I want to cry after watching that. Please tell me that was the local UUs borrowing the church. The Episcopalians have been known to lend their church to other faiths.

This wasn't a church service. It was an multi-faith event centered on ecological and environmental awareness, in which people of different faiths gathered together in support of a common social goal. The biblical "Tree of Life" was the central organizing idea:

You are invited to join in this historical moment known as the Great Turning by gathering around the ancient mythic image of the Tree of Life. This event features an address by author, environmental activist, and Gaian teacher Joanna Macy; storytelling by Michael Meade; liturgical dance by Betsey Beckman; and world music by Gina Salá. The evening is designed to bring together people of different spiritual and cultural traditions to express their sorrow and hope over the environmental and cultural upheaval our world is currently experiencing. The sacred space of the cathedral will be filled with the sights and sounds of dance, music, drumming, ritual, story, and song--a feast for the senses and the soul.

The Tree of Life Web Project (ToL) is a collaborative effort of biologists and nature enthusiasts from around the world. On more than 10,000 World Wide Web pages, the project provides information about biodiversity, the characteristics of different groups of organisms, and their evolutionary history....

Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.Extra caritatem nulla salus.In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness". सर्वभूतहितἌνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas GandhiY dduw bo'r diolch.

I don't think it can be denied that this does represent Anglicanism, since:

1) It took place in an Anglican cathedral with the permission of the presiding hierarch and,

2) The Anglican Church's prelates here or abroad made no effort to sanction the bishop (unless there is more to the story than the information thus far uncovered) who permitted the desecration of the sanctuary.

Since the altar has continued in use, then it seems that the Anglican Church is perfectly comfortable with what happened. After all, it is an ANGLICAN altar and an ANGLICAN church. They are not renting it from anybody else. So, they must take full responsibility for the middle-class-hippie paganism that occured there.

If such a thing were to happen in an Orthodox parish or, if I may dare speak for someone else, a Roman Catholic one, there would be all kinds of disciplinary actions and the entire building would be subject to exorcisms and blessings and whatnot to drive off any residue of such filth. What the Anglicans who run the Seattle church need to remember is that the building is not theirs if they truly worship God, but it is God's and His alone. He does not have to share it with such 'spirits' as those invoked by the heresiomatron who presided over this debauchery.

I do not think it is logical to differentiate between practicing such abominations and permitting them to happen within one's own precincts. The guilt is equally shared.

I don't think it can be denied that this does represent Anglicanism, since:

1) It took place in an Anglican cathedral with the permission of the presiding hierarch and,

2) The Anglican Church's prelates here or abroad made no effort to sanction the bishop (unless there is more to the story than the information thus far uncovered) who permitted the desecration of the sanctuary.

With all due respect Father, I'm not sure I agree that the decisions of one heirarch (or the lack of decisions by all the others) say anything at all about whether this represents Anglicanism or not. If we were to use that same measure which folks have used against Anglicanism against Orthodoxy would we not be at the least equally guilty? If I were to use this same criteria and and be convinced that "so and so action represents Orthodoxy because a Bishop allowed it" I would have left Orthodoxy long ago. Orthodoxy (through the heircarchy) allows and even condones all sorts of things that I find far more offensive than this, weird event in Seattle.

Quote

If such a thing were to happen in an Orthodox parish or, if I may dare speak for someone else, a Roman Catholic one, there would be all kinds of disciplinary actions and the entire building would be subject to exorcisms and blessings and whatnot to drive off any residue of such filth.

Catholic Churches DO have Native American services where Natives pray and have ceremonial dances around the altar. However these situations take place with real Native Americans, doing real tribal ceremonies, (and it's more a cultural thing like the "yule tree" as done in Serbian Churches) and not a bunch of white people dressed up in Native attire. So it's not exactly the same thing, but visually it is a bit weird to see the first time.

It is true that this would never happen in an Orthodox parish, but I have seen a lot of shocking things take place; more so I've seen and heard and experienced Bishops (and priests) saying some terribly un-Christian things at times DURING the Liturgy itself. The sad thing is I sometimes feel like these uncharitable attitudes of Orthodox heirarchs are more representative of Orthodoxy as a whole than what I witnessed in this video being representative of Anglicanism. (granted I didn't watch the whole thing as my time is short this afternoon)

Quote

I do not think it is logical to differentiate between practicing such abominations and permitting them to happen within one's own precincts. The guilt is equally shared.

Again, does that standard hold for Orthodoxy as well across the board? Or does it only hold for Liturgical bizarreness like this? I'm not defending what took place in this cathedral, but I find it more just a bunch of weirdness than anything really sinister or something we can use to deride Anglicanism. Just my opinion nothing more though.

Really, I can't properly respond unless you actually state events conducted in Orthodox parishes that were publicly known and not subject to discipline.

However, I would also add that I have never heard of an Orthodox parish beingnused for a pagan ritual. If it has happened, I would be the first to press for an inquiry and the canonical punishment of those who are guilty. I also imagine that I would have lots of compatriots in such an effort.

With all due respect Father, I'm not sure I agree that the decisions of one heirarch (or the lack of decisions by all the others) say anything at all about whether this represents Anglicanism or not. If we were to use that same measure which folks have used against Anglicanism against Orthodoxy would we not be at the least equally guilty? If I were to use this same criteria and and be convinced that "so and so action represents Orthodoxy because a Bishop allowed it" I would have left Orthodoxy long ago. Orthodoxy (through the heircarchy) allows and even condones all sorts of things that I find far more offensive than this, weird event in Seattle.

There is a difference between 'liturgical bizzareness' and pagan worship in a Christian church. Again, please read carefully what I have said. If the church belongs to God, then who are we to give it over to strange gods?

Again, does that standard hold for Orthodoxy as well across the board? Or does it only hold for Liturgical bizarreness like this? I'm not defending what took place in this cathedral, but I find it more just a bunch of weirdness than anything really sinister or something we can use to deride Anglicanism. Just my opinion nothing more though.

I confess that I don't know too much about Anglicanism/Episcopalianism, but I suspect that this woman and her hosts at St. Mark's, are not true representatives. But then again, perhaps they are.

No they're not. If you would like to know some real information about Anglican Christianity, please ask.

Quote

When Henry decided he made a matrimonial mistake, rather than take responsibility and try to do right, he simply called up 'ol Scratch and the two of them crafted an evil facsimile of the One, True Church.

Sigh. No, that is not historically accurate nor what happened. There is a thread here on OC.net about the historical context and truth of what happened at that time regarding the politics and other complications.

Quote

Fast forward to today and it's really no surprise at all that we have people calling themselves "priests" and "bishops" in this religion. I mean, they call themselves "Christians" so why not? Here we have a "church" that is dedicated to the Holy Apostle and Saint, Mark.

Because we are Christians...no quotes needed. and in my Church they *are* priests and bishops and the building is a church.

Just to remind people. Dr. Ann Holmes Redding was defrocked by her bishop after pastoral counseling and inhibition. What she says is her own words and not anything official from the Episcopal Church nor the Anglican Communion.

I wonder if this is what OzGeorge called the "purple demons" again, with pokes and uncharitable remarks against other human beings and other Churches.

Sigh again.

Ebor

Ebor, I would have to sadly disagree on a lot of your points. Things like this are becoming more and more representative of, if not Anglicanism (I would not besmirch the communities of Africa and South America that are struggling to keep the faith), then the Episcopal Church.

While it is true that there are Episcopalians, such as yourself, who still try to adhere to some form of Christian tradition and practice, this segment is becoming more and more the minority. Parishes that believe in the tenets of classical Anglicanism (whether High or Low) are growing fewer and fewer, and the problem is even worse at the diocesan level.

To further the problem, the Episcopal Church has been hijacked by a woman with papal pretensions who completely over-rides all the canons and guidelines of tEC in her efforts to persecute this shrinking minority and remake the church in the image of her and her ilk.

The ability to think of "Episcopalian" and "Christian" as synonyms has been irreparably damaged for the foreseeable future. Consider yourself fortunate if you are in a diocese where the two have not become mutually exclusive.

Logged

"Funny," said Lancelot, "how the people who can't pray say that prayers are not answered, however much the people who can pray say they are." TH White

Ebor, I would have to sadly disagree on a lot of your points. Things like this are becoming more and more representative of, if not Anglicanism (I would not besmirch the communities of Africa and South America that are struggling to keep the faith), then the Episcopal Church. While it is true that there are Episcopalians, such as yourself, who still try to adhere to some form of Christian tradition and practice, this segment is becoming more and more the minority. Parishes that believe in the tenets of classical Anglicanism (whether High or Low) are growing fewer and fewer, and the problem is even worse at the diocesan level. To further the problem, the Episcopal Church has been hijacked by a woman with papal pretensions who completely over-rides all the canons and guidelines of tEC in her efforts to persecute this shrinking minority and remake the church in the image of her and her ilk. The ability to think of "Episcopalian" and "Christian" as synonyms has been irreparably damaged for the foreseeable future. Consider yourself fortunate if you are in a diocese where the two have not become mutually exclusive.

I confess that I don't know too much about Anglicanism/Episcopalianism, but I suspect that this woman and her hosts at St. Mark's, are not true representatives. But then again, perhaps they are.

No they're not.

But if they call themselves Anglicans and meet in an Anglican church and ...yada, yada, yada... then I have a right to assume they represent the Anglican church. "If it walks and quacks like a duck...".

Quote

Fast forward to today and it's really no surprise at all that we have people calling themselves "priests" and "bishops" in this religion. I mean, they call themselves "Christians" so why not? Here we have a "church" that is dedicated to the Holy Apostle and Saint, Mark.

Because we are Christians...no quotes needed. and in my Church they *are* priests and bishops and the building is a church.

I am not speaking of you now, Ebor. But I am adamant that these people in the video are NOT Christians. They are preaching a false, non-existent Christ. They are sheep in wolves clothing that the REAL Christ warned us about. They are liars and under the influence of Satan. Again, I am not speaking about you.

Just to remind people. Dr. Ann Holmes Redding was defrocked by her bishop after pastoral counseling and inhibition. What she says is her own words and not anything official from the Episcopal Church nor the Anglican Communion.

I wonder if this is what OzGeorge called the "purple demons" again, with pokes and uncharitable remarks against other human beings and other Churches.

My words are not charitable because these wolves are attempting to destroy Christianity and they must be met with the Truth, which sometimes hurts. These "christians" are mocking Christians, and they're a plague upon all that is Sacred.

Really, I can't properly respond unless you actually state events conducted in Orthodox parishes that were publicly known and not subject to discipline.

Sorry Father, I will not (not that I cannot but I will not) give some of the more ugly specifics. While I believe transparency and openness is vital to the Church's well being and health, and I'm not afraid of the repercussions for myself, I do not believe these boards are the proper venue for such airing of our dirty laundry. If you wish me to give specifics that have not been broadcast over the internet I could do so privately, but I think forwarding you to www.ocanews.org and www.pokrov.org should be sufficient evidence that if I judged the Orthodox faith by what Bishops and priests knowingly do and/or allow without any sort of discipline, Orthodoxy would be just as guilty, if not more so, as Anglicanism is in the eyes of many Orthodox because of this event.

Quote

However, I would also add that I have never heard of an Orthodox parish beingnused for a pagan ritual.

Well I sort of concede that point in the sense that no Orthodox Church is being used to pray to gods other that the Holy Trinity. But I don't think it's entirely accurate to say we don't have pagan "rituals". I could argue that things like the burning of the Yule Log are in fact "pagan rituals" which of course have been Christianized by the Church. They are now entirely Christian of course and I personally do not have a problem with this at all. But ask almost any Fundamentalist Protestant and they will insist we are doing the same thing that was done in Seattle. Of course we know this is not true, but isn't it possible we are jumping to conclusions as well? Maybe these people just see "the spirit of the north" (or whatever she was praying to) as a metaphor for the Holy Spirit or something? I would reckon that is how most people in that church understood it even if the leader of the thing really thought she was praying to some other "gods". To hold 1000 people inside a Church as guilty (not to mention 80 million Anglicans around the world) for the actions of one woman, cathedral and one Bishop seems extreme to me.

Besides even some Traditionalist Orthodox Christians, as represented by www.orthodoxinfo.com have over the years given explicit examples of how "mainstream liberal" hierarchs have participated in "pagan rituals" so the accusation has been used against New Calendar Orthodox by some (but not all or even most) Old Calendar Orthodox. If you were to ask some Old Calendar Orthodox what they thought of Orthodox Churches lending/renting their sanctuaries to Coptic Christians you'd get the same reaction towards us; that we've "defiled out Altar" and have allowed "heretics to take over the Church" etc.

If this is merely about pagan rituals in an Orthodox church then yes, we stand essentially innocent. (or entirely innocent if it's narrowed down to prayer to pagan deities) But your words seemed to be far more broad than that; I took them to mean that an entire Christian communion is responsible for the actions of one Bishop's horrible negligence. If that is the case then we stand just as guilty as anyone.

I'm not defending what took place at this Church, or pagan prayers inside a Church however I think it's unfair to label Anglicans around the world as something less than Christian because of the un-Christian actions of one Anglican See in the United States. Again, if we measure ourselves by the same rod we are measuring them, where do we stand exactly?

Maybe I'm just being too nitpicky or maybe I'm taking your words in too general a sense, I don't know. but then I don't know a lot of things and so another gap in my ignorance wouldn't be that much of a shock to me.

Well, let's just say that an ambiguous accusation begets an ambiguous defense.

I think there is a critical difference between moral lapses versus apostasy. For example, when moral codes are violated, one still retains one's identity as a _________. However, once that identity is changed (which is what happens when a Christian worships/honors/invokes another god), then you are talking about a very different problem.

To worship another god, or to permit the sanctuary to be used for the worship of a foreign deity, is to lose one's Christianity. I have significant problems with allowing a heterodox to worship his version of Christ on an Orthodox altar (or visa versa for that matter), but there is at least a shared intent to find Jesus Christ, whereas a pagan worshipping his deity at a Christian altar is not looking for Christ at all, but the 'Great Whatever' as another poster so eloquently summarized it.

This does not excuse Orthodox who defile the name of God through their bold-faced sins. But, I don't think you can equate the two.

While I have heard that Orthodox hierarchs have been present for heterodox 'services,' I know of no Orthodox bishop who has engaged in pagan worship or permitted a church to be defiled by pagan activity. I know of one case where an Orthodox metropolitan was present for an ecumenical gathering that looked 'pagan,' but was actually, more or less, an attempt to have an 'indigenous Christian' service (read drums and facepaint in the name of Christ, something that my 'inner hunter-gatherer' can appreciate). Orthodoxy can absorb pagan elements, but they are always stripped of their pagan gods prior to assimilation.

The last controversy I heard of was that surrounding a Romanian metropolitan who received communion in an RC church. Afterwards, however, he received a rebuke from his synod and repented. That's how we roll.

Really, I can't properly respond unless you actually state events conducted in Orthodox parishes that were publicly known and not subject to discipline.

Sorry Father, I will not (not that I cannot but I will not) give some of the more ugly specifics. While I believe transparency and openness is vital to the Church's well being and health, and I'm not afraid of the repercussions for myself, I do not believe these boards are the proper venue for such airing of our dirty laundry. If you wish me to give specifics that have not been broadcast over the internet I could do so privately, but I think forwarding you to www.ocanews.org and www.pokrov.org should be sufficient evidence that if I judged the Orthodox faith by what Bishops and priests knowingly do and/or allow without any sort of discipline, Orthodoxy would be just as guilty, if not more so, as Anglicanism is in the eyes of many Orthodox because of this event.

Quote

However, I would also add that I have never heard of an Orthodox parish beingnused for a pagan ritual.

Well I sort of concede that point in the sense that no Orthodox Church is being used to pray to gods other that the Holy Trinity. But I don't think it's entirely accurate to say we don't have pagan "rituals". I could argue that things like the burning of the Yule Log are in fact "pagan rituals" which of course have been Christianized by the Church. They are now entirely Christian of course and I personally do not have a problem with this at all. But ask almost any Fundamentalist Protestant and they will insist we are doing the same thing that was done in Seattle. Of course we know this is not true, but isn't it possible we are jumping to conclusions as well? Maybe these people just see "the spirit of the north" (or whatever she was praying to) as a metaphor for the Holy Spirit or something? I would reckon that is how most people in that church understood it even if the leader of the thing really thought she was praying to some other "gods". To hold 1000 people inside a Church as guilty (not to mention 80 million Anglicans around the world) for the actions of one woman, cathedral and one Bishop seems extreme to me.

Besides even some Traditionalist Orthodox Christians, as represented by www.orthodoxinfo.com have over the years given explicit examples of how "mainstream liberal" hierarchs have participated in "pagan rituals" so the accusation has been used against New Calendar Orthodox by some (but not all or even most) Old Calendar Orthodox. If you were to ask some Old Calendar Orthodox what they thought of Orthodox Churches lending/renting their sanctuaries to Coptic Christians you'd get the same reaction towards us; that we've "defiled out Altar" and have allowed "heretics to take over the Church" etc.

If this is merely about pagan rituals in an Orthodox church then yes, we stand essentially innocent. (or entirely innocent if it's narrowed down to prayer to pagan deities) But your words seemed to be far more broad than that; I took them to mean that an entire Christian communion is responsible for the actions of one Bishop's horrible negligence. If that is the case then we stand just as guilty as anyone.

I'm not defending what took place at this Church, or pagan prayers inside a Church however I think it's unfair to label Anglicans around the world as something less than Christian because of the un-Christian actions of one Anglican See in the United States. Again, if we measure ourselves by the same rod we are measuring them, where do we stand exactly?

Maybe I'm just being too nitpicky or maybe I'm taking your words in too general a sense, I don't know. but then I don't know a lot of things and so another gap in my ignorance wouldn't be that much of a shock to me.

Well, let's just say that an ambiguous accusation begets an ambiguous defense.

I think there is a critical difference between moral lapses versus apostasy. For example, when moral codes are violated, one still retains one's identity as a _________. However, once that identity is changed (which is what happens when a Christian worships/honors/invokes another god), then you are talking about a very different problem.

To worship another god, or to permit the sanctuary to be used for the worship of a foreign deity, is to lose one's Christianity. I have significant problems with allowing a heterodox to worship his version of Christ on an Orthodox altar (or visa versa for that matter), but there is at least a shared intent to find Jesus Christ, whereas a pagan worshipping his deity at a Christian altar is not looking for Christ at all, but the 'Great Whatever' as another poster so eloquently summarized it.

This does not excuse Orthodox who defile the name of God through their bold-faced sins. But, I don't think you can equate the two.

While I have heard that Orthodox hierarchs have been present for heterodox 'services,' I know of no Orthodox bishop who has engaged in pagan worship or permitted a church to be defiled by pagan activity. I know of one case where an Orthodox metropolitan was present for an ecumenical gathering that looked 'pagan,' but was actually, more or less, an attempt to have an 'indigenous Christian' service (read drums and facepaint in the name of Christ, something that my 'inner hunter-gatherer' can appreciate). Orthodoxy can absorb pagan elements, but they are always stripped of their pagan gods prior to assimilation.

The last controversy I heard of was that surrounding a Romanian metropolitan who received communion in an RC church. Afterwards, however, he received a rebuke from his synod and repented. That's how we roll.

Amen, Father. I think this sums up what I was saying in my posts.

Logged

"The Scots-Irish; Brewed in Scotland, bottled in Ireland, uncorked in America." ~Scots-Irish saying

Well, let's just say that an ambiguous accusation begets an ambiguous defense.

I think there is a critical difference between moral lapses versus apostasy. For example, when moral codes are violated, one still retains one's identity as a _________. However, once that identity is changed (which is what happens when a Christian worships/honors/invokes another god), then you are talking about a very different problem.

To worship another god, or to permit the sanctuary to be used for the worship of a foreign deity, is to lose one's Christianity. I have significant problems with allowing a heterodox to worship his version of Christ on an Orthodox altar (or visa versa for that matter), but there is at least a shared intent to find Jesus Christ, whereas a pagan worshipping his deity at a Christian altar is not looking for Christ at all, but the 'Great Whatever' as another poster so eloquently summarized it.

This does not excuse Orthodox who defile the name of God through their bold-faced sins. But, I don't think you can equate the two.

While I have heard that Orthodox hierarchs have been present for heterodox 'services,' I know of no Orthodox bishop who has engaged in pagan worship or permitted a church to be defiled by pagan activity. I know of one case where an Orthodox metropolitan was present for an ecumenical gathering that looked 'pagan,' but was actually, more or less, an attempt to have an 'indigenous Christian' service (read drums and facepaint in the name of Christ, something that my 'inner hunter-gatherer' can appreciate). Orthodoxy can absorb pagan elements, but they are always stripped of their pagan gods prior to assimilation.

The last controversy I heard of was that surrounding a Romanian metropolitan who received communion in an RC church. Afterwards, however, he received a rebuke from his synod and repented. That's how we roll.

Well, let's just say that an ambiguous accusation begets an ambiguous defense.

I think there is a critical difference between moral lapses versus apostasy. For example, when moral codes are violated, one still retains one's identity as a _________. However, once that identity is changed (which is what happens when a Christian worships/honors/invokes another god), then you are talking about a very different problem.

To worship another god, or to permit the sanctuary to be used for the worship of a foreign deity, is to lose one's Christianity. I have significant problems with allowing a heterodox to worship his version of Christ on an Orthodox altar (or visa versa for that matter), but there is at least a shared intent to find Jesus Christ, whereas a pagan worshipping his deity at a Christian altar is not looking for Christ at all, but the 'Great Whatever' as another poster so eloquently summarized it.

This does not excuse Orthodox who defile the name of God through their bold-faced sins. But, I don't think you can equate the two.

While I have heard that Orthodox hierarchs have been present for heterodox 'services,' I know of no Orthodox bishop who has engaged in pagan worship or permitted a church to be defiled by pagan activity. I know of one case where an Orthodox metropolitan was present for an ecumenical gathering that looked 'pagan,' but was actually, more or less, an attempt to have an 'indigenous Christian' service (read drums and facepaint in the name of Christ, something that my 'inner hunter-gatherer' can appreciate). Orthodoxy can absorb pagan elements, but they are always stripped of their pagan gods prior to assimilation.

The last controversy I heard of was that surrounding a Romanian metropolitan who received communion in an RC church. Afterwards, however, he received a rebuke from his synod and repented. That's how we roll.

Amen, Father. I think this sums up what I was saying in my posts.

What about Jewish services?

I think Judaism is a non-Christian religion.

Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.Extra caritatem nulla salus.In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness". सर्वभूतहितἌνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas GandhiY dduw bo'r diolch.

Well, let's just say that an ambiguous accusation begets an ambiguous defense.

I think there is a critical difference between moral lapses versus apostasy. For example, when moral codes are violated, one still retains one's identity as a _________. However, once that identity is changed (which is what happens when a Christian worships/honors/invokes another god), then you are talking about a very different problem.

To worship another god, or to permit the sanctuary to be used for the worship of a foreign deity, is to lose one's Christianity. I have significant problems with allowing a heterodox to worship his version of Christ on an Orthodox altar (or visa versa for that matter), but there is at least a shared intent to find Jesus Christ, whereas a pagan worshipping his deity at a Christian altar is not looking for Christ at all, but the 'Great Whatever' as another poster so eloquently summarized it.

This does not excuse Orthodox who defile the name of God through their bold-faced sins. But, I don't think you can equate the two.

While I have heard that Orthodox hierarchs have been present for heterodox 'services,' I know of no Orthodox bishop who has engaged in pagan worship or permitted a church to be defiled by pagan activity. I know of one case where an Orthodox metropolitan was present for an ecumenical gathering that looked 'pagan,' but was actually, more or less, an attempt to have an 'indigenous Christian' service (read drums and facepaint in the name of Christ, something that my 'inner hunter-gatherer' can appreciate). Orthodoxy can absorb pagan elements, but they are always stripped of their pagan gods prior to assimilation.

The last controversy I heard of was that surrounding a Romanian metropolitan who received communion in an RC church. Afterwards, however, he received a rebuke from his synod and repented. That's how we roll.

Amen, Father. I think this sums up what I was saying in my posts.

What about Jewish services?

I think Judaism is a non-Christian religion.

Sorry. I was ambiguous with that question.

Orthodox bishops, even recently, have participated in a Jewish service. Do you see this as acceptable, or akin to sharing the church?

If you will, you can become all flame.Extra caritatem nulla salus.In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness". सर्वभूतहितἌνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas GandhiY dduw bo'r diolch.

This woman is a complete moron, you're either Christian or you're Muslim, you simply can't practice and believe both. Either you believe he was the Son of God, God and the messiah and that no one will come after him, that he shed his blood on the cross for our sins and that the bible is the perfected word of God (Christianity) or you believe he was just a prophet of God and that Muhammad is the seal of the prophets, the last and final messenger and that al-Qur'an is the final perfected word of God, superior to all previous books (Islaam). There is so many things wrong with what she is saying it's both absurd and ridiculous that a 'priest' would make such a moronic claim. Like, really? Are you serious? To think this woman is a 'teacher' too. All, I can really say is wow, the stupidity of people amazes me sometimes.

Logged

"We all make choices. But in the end, our choices make us."-Andrew Ryan.

I could only watch about 30 seconds of that before the drivel became too annoying. "Follow your heart, your heart will never lead you astray." A saccharine platitude that is completely wrong. Most people don't know their own hearts and what motivates them.

I know alot of Muslims, I know more about Islaam than I do about Christianity and can say, with all certainty, both of these clowns would be hard pressed to find anyone in the ulema or any Muslims among the laity that would support and or agree with them. I think the same could be said for Christianity and Christians. Again, both of these people are morons, you either one or the other. Not mentioning the fact that women shouldn't be priests or head services and both Muslims and Christians would agree to this. Instead of "listening to your heart," how about you listen to the word and laws of God, whether you follow Christianity or Islaam. If she was truly a Muslim she should wear hijab, the hijab is wajib upon all Muslimas, most especially when they are among men whom are not their relatives or husband and she doesn't much look like a hijabi to me.

Logged

"We all make choices. But in the end, our choices make us."-Andrew Ryan.

Because of the editing, I'm not sure if it was a service or a press conference. As I understand Hannukah, one candle is lit each night. It seems that all of them were being lit at the same time. I also noticed that many of the males present did not have their heads covered (i.e. no kipas) nor did the rabbis have their talises, which makes me wonder if this was anything but a symbolic ceremony versus an actual service.